RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04748 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code 2X be changed to an RE code allowing reenlistment in another service. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The RE code of 2X will not allow him to reenlist in another military service. He is in good health, still has a working knowledge of the Area of Responsibility (AOR), and wants to serve again. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 20 Jun 06. On 7 May 12, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to impose non-judicial punishment (NJP) on the applicant for alleged misconduct in violation of Article 134 (adultery) of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On 10 May 12, the applicant waived his right to a court-martial and accepted NJP proceedings. He submitted matters in writing regarding the proposed NJP and requested a personal appearance before the commander. On 14 May 12, the commander considered the evidence and matters presented by the applicant and imposed the NJP of a reduction to the grade of senior airman, a new date of rank of 14 May 12, and forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for two months. This action was filed in the applicant’s UIF. On 17 Aug 12, the applicant was rendered a referral Evaluation Performance Report as a result of receiving the Article 15, for violating Article 134 of UCMJ. On 28 Mar 13, the applicant’s commander signed the AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration for Airmen in the Regular Air Force/Air Force Reserve, not selecting the applicant for reenlistment, indicating that the applicant received an Article 15 after violating UCMJ Article 134 (adultery), and approximately one year later violated Article 134 again. He failed to rehabilitate himself and his behavior was not conducive to military standards. On 8 Apr 13, the applicant signed the AF Form 418 indicating he did not intend to appeal the commander’s decision. On 31 May 13, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with six years, eleven months, and eleven days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was separated under the FY13 Air Force Shaping Date of Separation Rollback Program on 31 May 13. On 28 Mar 13, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment on AF Form 418. The applicant acknowledged the non-selection and rendered his intent not to appeal the decision. In accordance with AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force; first term, second term, or career Airman non-selected for reenlistment will receive the RE code 2X. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Feb 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2.  The application was timely filed. 3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04748 in Executive Session on 12 Aug 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04748 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 5 Jan 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15. 1 2